finance_revenue_leakage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description does not disclose any potential side effects, data modifications, or destructive behavior despite the annotation indicating destructiveHint=true. It offers no insight into what happens when the action is invoked.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and to the point, with no unnecessary verbosity. It follows a clear structure with a verb, resource, and parameter listing, but the brevity contributes to the lack of substance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema (though not shown), the description does not explain expected outputs, return values, error conditions, or how the action integrates with the broader finance domain. It is incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The parameters 'message' and 'inputs' are given one-line generic explanations ('Free-text objective', 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs') but no specifics on expected format, content, or how they affect the action. With zero schema description coverage, this is insufficient for an agent to correctly populate them.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states it runs a finance domain agent action named 'finance_revenue_leakage', but does not explain what revenue leakage analysis entails or what the action accomplishes. It is a generic dispatcher statement without domain-specific clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to other finance-related tools like company_revenue or quickbooks reports. The description does not mention alternatives, prerequisites, or typical scenarios.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.